Raftsman's journal. (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, April 22, 1863, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    ira press, ow, I only beg that la like manner
yo w!t not uk impossibilities of roe.
"If yon think yon are not strong enough to
take Richmond just bow, 1 do Mot ak yen to
try just now. Save the army, material tod
personal, and I will atrengthoa it for th tftf
teaaive again aa Tast I can." . -:
Oa the 3d of ?nly after the army had
reached Herriaon'a Bar, General McCleltan
writes loathe Secretary of War :
I em in hope a that the enemy it aa com
pletely Worn out aa we are ; he waa certainly
very severely punished io the lat battle.
. . . . It is, of coarse, lmpoasible to es
timate aa yet our losses, but I doubt whether
there are to day more than 30,000 men with
their colore. , . .
"To accomplish the great task of capturing
Richmond, and putting an end to this rebel
lion, re-enforcements should be sent to me
rather much orer tbao leas than 100,000
men." '
The retreat of the army from Malvern to
Harrisons Bar was very precipitate. The
troops upon their arrival there, were huddled
together in great confusion, the entire army
being collected within a apace of about three
mi lea .along the river. No order vert given
the first day for occupying the kighU which com
manded the potitiom, nor were the troop to
placed a to be able to resist a attack in force
by the enemy, and nothing but a heavy rain,
thereby preeenting the enemy from bringing up
their artillery, eaved the army there from d
struetion. The enemy did succeed in bring
ing up some of their artillery, and threw some
shells into camp, before any prepsratious for
defense had been made. On the 3d of July
the hlgbta were taken poaeaaion of by our
troops and works of defense commenced, and
then, and not until then,was our army secure
in that position. -
cmbkX or f ROOFS.
By reference to' the testimony of Mr. Tuck
er, Assistant Secretary of War, it will be seen
that prior to the 5th of April. 1862, 121,500
men &M bean landed on the peninsula
Shortly afterward Gen. Franklin's division of
General McDowell's corps, numbering about
iz,uuu men, was sent a own. in ine esnj
part of June Gen. McCatl's division, of the
same corps, of about 10,000 msn, was sent
down', togetberawith about 11,000 men, from
Baflnnore and Fortress Monroe, and about
the fast of June some 5,000 men of General
Shields division were also sent down. Total,
169,400 men. ' ,
On the 20th or July, 1862, according to the
returns sent to the Adjutant Generals office
by Gen. McClellan, the amy of the Potomac,
ander hia command, was as follows; Present
for duty, 101,901; special duty, sick, and in
airest, 17-828; absent, 38,795; totaM 58,314,
This Included the corps of Gen. Dix, amount
ing 9,997, present for duty, or, in all, 11,778
men. - '
Itaftsmans Journal.
: CLE A It FIELD, PA.. APRIL 23." 1863.
The following extract from the New Tork
Herald gives, perhaps", the most comprehen
sive and correct vieW of tfiw late battle at
Charleston, that we' nave noticed :
"The extraordinary combat maintain edlast
week by eight small iron-cladi, carrying six
teen guns, with innumerable batteries and
powerful forts by which the entrance to
Charleston harbor is defended, is one of the
most remarkable events of the great rebellion,
prolific as it has been in prodigies of various
kinds. Nothing like it is tube found in the
whole history of nsval warfare; and the fact
that the attack was repulsed, and the pigmy
assailants were forced to haul off, does not de
tract from the marvelfoftmes of the enter
prise, but only add to the lessons which may
be learned from experiment, and which may
be profited by in our future operations.
" Let ua look tor a moment at the facta.
Seven little turreted Monitors, each carrying
two guns ; another equally diminutive vessel,
built on a different model the Keokuk and
an armored Vessel-of-war tbe New Iron
sides carrying as many gone as all the rest
combined, moved from their anchorage with
in the bar of Charleston on Tuesday, the 7th
inst.,aod headed directly toward the city,wlth
inatrnctiona to get into a good position to en
gage Fort Surapter. . In. endeavoring to get
into the desired position the propeller screw
of the foremost of them became entangled ia
a rope netting which the defenders had placed
across the channel. This rendered the vessel
entirely unmanageable, and for some time ahe
drifted without any motive power ol her own,
till at last she got extricated. ' The other res
sels avoided being caught In the same trap.
They looked about for; another opening, but
in vain. .They could not get to the north of
Fort Snmpter without penetrating this net
work barricade; and to attempt that would
have peen to render the whole fleet powerless.
In this dilemma they drew op against Fort
Sampler at distances ranging from three hun
dred to sis hundred yards, and for half an
hour maintained a most unequal contest a
gainst it. From Sumter, Moultrie and three
other powerful defensive works tbey were
subjected to a concentric fire which would have
sent to the bottom any wooden fleet that ever
breasted the waves of ocean. No less than
three thousand five hundred rounds were fired,
at them, which they coald only return at the
rate of one to twenty. . They fired in all just
one bund red and fifty on rocrnxfs of atnnnition
esah vessel counting as follows: The New
Ironsides 8. Passaic 9, Catskill 25, Nabant24,
Keokak Z vTeehawken 26, Mootauk 26, Pa
tapsco 18, Nantucket 15, Total 151.
The effect of tleir guns oo Fort Sumter was
se destructive that if they could have kept up
the fight for an hour vr two louger the rebel
fortress wonld hare been rendered untenable.
'iVW let us examine the result of tht half
HSU. z$
Boar firing on them. The gUus of the forts
wr of the heaviest calibre and most approv
ed patterns the English allies of the rebels
having supplied them with some of their best
ordnance. The artillery practice waa excel
lent, aa ia proved by the fact that our nine
vessels were struck five hundred and twenty
times,tho favors being distributed aa follows :
New Ironsides received of shots 65, Keokuk
90, Weehawk.ee 60, Montaua 20, Passaic 68,
Nantucket 51, Catskill 61, Patapaco 45, Na
hant 80. All thia at point blank range. And
yet the Keokuk was the only Teasel that was
fatally damaged by this terrific fire and even
she, pierced and torn as she was, with nine
teen shots on the water line, bad enough vital
ity left to obey the aignal to retire and rejoin
the flag ship, snd it waa not till next morn
ing that she sank lu tbe waves. The New
Ironsides was unmanageable all tbe day, re
fusing to answer her helm, and therefore ahe
took no active part in the fight,' discharging
only one broadside at Fort Moultrie. But the
seven vessels of tbe Monitor pattern came out
of tbe fiery ordeal almost unscathed. The on
ly injury sustained by theui was by tbo in
denting of the turreta of some of them to such
an extent as to prevent their revolving.
That fight is pregnant with lessons. It
teaches us that veaseis of the Monitor pattern
sre coroparitively impregnable, and that no
forts or defensive works can. prevent their
passage, it the channels remain unobstructed.
If tbey could have been kept moving in a cir
cle, as were tbe gunboats that captured the
forts at Hilton Head, delivering their fire aa
tbey passed, tbey would not have been expos
ed to one tithe tbe risks tbey Incurred while
stationary under the concentrated fire of three
hundred guns. But there was no spsce for any
such manoeuvre befere Fort Sumpter." V
The editors of the Copperhead organ in this
place, in their issue of last woek, (April loth,
1863), make the following bold, defiant and
unequivocal assertion :
ff defy these foul-mouthed slanderers to
point to a single 'resolution,' 'speuch,' or 'pub
lic act,' for which the Democratic party is in
any sense responsible, favoring an uncondition
al; or 'dishonorable' peace. If they cannot do
tbia and we know they connot then are their
souls blackened with tbe damning guilt of
bearing false witness against tbeir neighbors.
We have pronounced the charge of our
neighbor as maliciously false, and demanded
that he be held up before the community as a
public calumniator, unless be substantiates his
charges. Having done so, we now promise to
be tiied by the same ordeal before which we
arraign bim."
Very well, neighbors ; you have thrown out
the challenge and appointed tbo "ordeal."
Now, fur the evidence. Here it ia :
"Other classes, embrscing seven-eights of
the whole population, we venture to say that
four-fifths of them will raise their voices any
day in favor of ANY tcompromise,.or "parley'
that will restore peace to the nation. . . Now,
for the satisfaction of this editorial trio, and
to enable them to - know exactly where to go
when they determine to put tbeir blood-hounds
on the scent for victims to satiate tbeir thirst
for blood, we tahe this opportunity to inform
them that vt are Juat that kind of 'traitors'
we are in favor of ANY 'compromise,' 'parley,'
armistice, or testation of hostility, that will give
ine lainten nope or preserving our present
government, our Constitution and free insti
tutions, and restoring prosperity to the coun
try." Clearfield Republican, July Zd, 1861.
It will be observed that the evidence is pos
tive conclusive. . The editors of the Copper
head organ, in tbefr issue of July 3d, 1863,
say that tbey are "i favor dfaHy compromise,
parley, armistice, or cessation of hostility," that
will "restore peace" and preserve tbe pres
ent form of government." In view of this
unequivocal testimony, the "ordeal" the
community" before which they 'arraigned'
themselves, we think, cannot fail to pronounce
a proper verdict. And what is that verdict to
be T According to the authority first above
quoted, the "ordeal" will prononnee, the edi
tors of tbe Copperhead organ in Clearfield, a set
of self-convicted ''public calumniators and foul-
mouthed slanderers," whose "souls" are
" blackened with the damning guilt of bear
."Ing false witness against tbeir neighbors!"
This may seam to be harsh' lafigoage, but we
are not responsible for it. The editers of that
sheet, "defy" tbe proof, challenge tbe trial,
fnrnish the evidence, and pronounce the sen
tencehence, they alone are responsible for it.
But, perhaps, they will-say that the extract
given is not a "resolution," speech," or
"public act," for which their jparty is respon
sible that it is an editorial a mere private
opinion. ... Such special pleading nil I not avail
them anything, however, as tbey claim to be
"firmly Democratic," and hence, the organ of
the Copperhead clique of Clearfield county,
whose sentiments tbey nndoubtedly utter
and as such, they will be held responsible, by
"the community," for the "public act" of ad
vocating "peace on any terms," and for "de
liberately perpetrating a wicked, barefaced
and malicious falsehood" upon their readers
and "they knew it to be such"! when tbey
wrote the article, which they published in
their issne or April loth, 1863.
A Fact. Several years since, it was cus
tomary for the so-called "Democratic" politi
cians to raise a great bud and cry, on certain
occasions, about the influence of "British
Gold" to the detriment of the interests of
this country. Now, "British Gold" builds
ships for the rebels to run our blockaded ports
with "British Gold" fits oof . pirates and
sends theui forth to rob and destroy our com
mercial marine upon the high aeas ''British
Gold" buys arms and ammunition for tbe reb
els to carry on their war againat our govern
ment ia short, "British Gold" - it tbe hope
and stay and life of th rebellion, and yet,'
not one , word ol condemnation do we hear
now, against this? see of "British Gold," from
these same fellows. Tea, on the other band,
tbey rejoice that ancb is the fact. Verily,
things have changed of Arte I
Tbe ai my vote, lor Judge of the Supreme
Court of Vf icorjm, so tar as received, stauds
Republican 6,158, Ueraotrat 2,216'
The following extract is taken from the
Clearfield Copperhead organ of April 15, 1863 :
"Was there any division in the North until
the Administration openly disregarded the
purposes of the war as declared by resolution
of Congress in July 1861 by abolishing slave
ry in the District of Columbia by confiscat
ing slave property and finally, by the issue
of emancipation proclamations declaring im
partial freedom' to three or four millions of
negroes? Until these thine; took place no
voice wss raised against the war."
Is the above assertion true, ' or not J Let
us exaraino the record and ascertain the facts.
As esrly as April 10th, 1861, two days before
the bombardment of Fort Sumter, tbe Copper
head organ, of thia place, gave vent to its feel
ings and views in this manner : )
"According to the mouthpieces of the Re
publican party, every Democrat who is opposed
to tbe ruinous policy of making war upon the
seceded States, in a Tain attempt to compel
them to live in harmony wilb us,' is called
... And then, in their issue of April 17th, 1861
we find the following declaration : -, -
'We emphatically condemn and denounce
tbe policy of the President. . . .Should he
madly attempt the subjugation of the seceded
States, and by force of arms undertake to com
pel them to return to their allegiance to the
Ui ion, it would be folly to expect to be sustained.'
Now, the above extracts mean, if they mean
anything at all, that the editors of the' Cop
perhead organ were opposed to the war at the
time of their publication. In the first, they
seemingly complain of the "Democrats" be
ing designated "Secessionists" because' tbey
are "opposed to the tuitions policy of making
war upon the seceded States." And in the
second they "emphatically denounce and con
demn" the tear policy of the President, snd
ssy it would bo folly" for him "to expect to
be sustained," should he "attempt the subju
gation of the seceded States, and by force
"" of arms undertake to compel t hem to return
"to their allogiance. to the Union." The
reader ahould remember that these declara
tions were msde, perhaps three months prior
to the passage of the confiscation act, nearly
a year previous to the abolishing of slavery in
the District of Columbia, and more than six
teen months before tbe emancipation scheme
was announced, and yet, in the face of these
tscts, these astute editors have the audacity
to tell tbeir readers t hat there was no "divi
sion in the North" and-"no rot raised against
tbe war," until after these thing took place.
Verily, they must consider their readers as
exceedingly ignorant, or they would not dare
to resort such bar laced ptevarieationa.
A spirited engagement took place on the
Nausemoud river, some miles above Suffolk,
on the 14th, between one of our gunboats and
some rebel batteries on-shore. After several
hours fighting, the rebels fled. i,
.... ' Report of the Majority. ;
The Committee appointed under the resolu
tion of the 20th of Jsnuary last, to inquire
whether unlawful means were employed to se
cure the election or a United States Senator,
with authority to send for persons and papers,
beg leave to offer the fallowing report : ; "
That, they have held for thirty-three ses
sions since that time, and examined thirty
The first witness was T. J. Boyer.
(He testified precisely as he wrote In his
letter published alter the election )
Now,' if this statement of Mr. Boyer is true,
there can be no doubt about the employment
of unlawful means to secure the election of
General Simon Cameron to the Senate of.tbe
United Status, But the Committee had other
testimony before them in regard to the trans
actions related by Dr. Boyer ; and it becomes
necessary, in the sight of that testimony, to
examine hia claims to truthfulness.
That there were, within a few days previous
to tbe Senatorial - elections, repeated inter
views between Mr. Brobst and Mr. Boyer can
not lie doubted, because they not only both
testify to this fact, but their testimony is cor
roborated by thst of Capt. Chritzman, Dr. Ear
ly, Michael K. Boyer, and Mr. Vangbaft.
They also agreed in regard tor tbe private- in
terviews bad between Dr. Boyer and Gefferal
Camoron ; first at the State Capital Bank, and
afterwards at Dr. Boyer's room, itr the Penn
sylvania House; and in this they are sustain
ed by the testimony of Capt. Chritzman, Dr.
Barley, and Mr. Vaughan. Them agree, more
over, as to the arrangements and preparations
which wore made to visit Gen. Cameron at his
own bonne at tbe request of Mr. Brobst ; and
as to the fact that such preparations were
made, we have the testimony of Dr. Earley. '
There is also a marked agreement between
the testimony of Dr. Boyer and that of John
J. Patterson. They both estify that they met
in llarrisburg on the Friday immediately pre
ceding the Senatorial election ; that they
went to Reading on the fternoon of that day
on the Lebanon Valley cars, and that Gen.
Cameron was on the same train ; that arrange
ments were there made between Mr. Patterson
and Dr. Boyer to meet Gen. Cameron at the
house of bis son, J. D. Cameron, cn the next
evening; that they met according to appoint
ment, and that on the following Tuesday morn
ing, tbe day of the Senatorial election, Dr.
Boyer, at the request of Mr. Pstterson, went'
tu Patterson's room, in Heir's Hotel, where
he found Gen. Cameron, and alterwards met
Dr. Fuller.
These are only a few of the numerous points
of coincidence between tbe testimony of Dr.
Boyer and tbaf of Messrs. Brobst snd Patter
son. Indeed, there Is almost a perfect agree
ment between them, exiept in regard to the al
leged -money transactions. ltmutbe evident
to every one that, in the interviews which Mr.
Brobst and Mr. Patterson had with Dr. Boyer,
their only object was to influence him, by
some means or other, to Vote for Gen. Cam
eron for United States Senator But by what
means did they attempt to accomplish this
Here the testimony of these three witnessed
involves a direct contradiction'. Dr. Boyer
asserts that Mr. Brobst told him he was au
thorized by Gen. Cameron to offer five thou
sand dollars for a rote, which Mr. Brobst de
nies, and that Gen. Cameron and Mr. Patter
son positively agreed to give him twenty
thousand dolltn,and finally, twenty-five thou
sand dollars, in order to secure his vote for
Simon Cameron, .which is emphatically de
tied by Mr. Patterson. We are, therefore,
tiouod to conclude either that the statements
of Dr. Boyer, on tbe on bend, or those of Mr.
Patterson and Mr. Brobst on tbe other, fa re
gard to the pecuniary considerations, are
downright and deliberate falsehoods.
Men always act from motives. It is, there
fore, legitimate to inquire what motive could
bare influenced Dr. Boyer in this single case T
It CooTd But hate been last, fat sorely be' had
no more to fear from telling, the truth than
from a declaration of falsehood. It could not
havit been the hope of gain, for it is impqssi
ble for any one to see how be could have ex
ncrvi anv Ih nf fit f rt-im thu 11 f !trnn. nf inv
I j
such false statement. Nor could be have been
actuated b a malevolent or revengeful feel
ing, for there is no evidence of tbe existence
of any such feeling on the part of Dr. Boyer
l . r. . v - i
tgaiDu wen. vimvron or any oi nis irienas.
Moreover, to stiuiiose anv man could falsify
and knowinelv charirtt nunn hi lllou'.nin-
without some strong . motivo, a crime which
wouiu iorever uiasi ine reputation ol its per
petrator in the community, and then call upon
God in the most solemn manner.in attestation
of tbe truthfulness of his charge, would be to
ascribe to him an ' unaccountable degree of
moral aepravity.
'" Here another auestlon'will natnrnllv ria
Can any motive be discovered on the part of
Messrs. cronst ana t'attrrson which might in
cline either of thnm to a denial of tbe truth,
in regard to Ibis money transaction 7 The an
swer is easy. If this feature of the statement
of Mr. Bover ba lril lhv hav hnth hoin
guilty of attempting to briber member of this
: -1 -. i - . . ...
uegisiniurc, wmco is, unaer onr lawa, a Dign
misdemeanor, subjecting tbe offenders to a se
vere iieuauy. ..
But who does not know that th Inr f x
poiurc and punishment and of tbe odium that
must necessarily result from the commission
ol such a crime would be one of the strongest
motives to impel them to falsehood. It is
not rvasonablu to expect men to criminate
themselves. . -
Let ns look at this testimony from another
siauu-puiui. j. rum is always consistent with
itself. The statement of Mr. Boyer is plain,
straigntiorwara, circumstantial, bears upon
tbe face of it no apparent discrepancy, it ia
corroborated in nearly all its leading details
py ine testimony oi Messrs. Brobst and Pat
tersou, snd In several particulars by that ot
Capt. Chritzman, Dr. Early, Mr Vaughan,
Michael K. Boyer.and Dr. Fuller, all of which
may be seen by a reference to the testimony
of these gentlemen, herewith submitted. But
rnow let uS take a brief survey of the anti.
ments of Messrs. Brobst and Patterson.
Mr. Brobst met Gen. Cameron some weeks
before the meeting of the Legislature, but n
conversation passed between them in regard
to the election of a United States Senator.
Subsequently, without any request from any
one, and of his own accord, he came to Har
risburg, went the same evening to see Gener
al vuieruii.anu oucreu niru Lis services,with
out being asked to do so, to secure his elec
lion to tbe Senate of th ITnif-.i IJ
again returned to Uarrisburg,stopped at nerr'a
Hotel, but soon removed to the Pennsylvania
nouse.wiiere Dr. Boyer then had his rooms
. Here be met with Dr. Boyer, and had re-
peatea interviews witb him ; invited him to
Gen. Cameron's bouse ; provided horses and
carnages on two occasions to couvey hnu
there ; visited the General three or four times
at bis residence; became tbe medium of com
munication between him and Boyer.and made
the arrangements for several meetings between
them. All this was done by Mr. Brobst, be it
remembered, at considerable cost both of
time and money, and without auy arrange
ment whatever witb Gen. Cameron, or any
body.else, by which he was to bo reimbursed.
This is possible, but is it at all probable t
But again: Mr. Brobst is positively impli
cated, as other -testimony than that, of Dr.
Boyer proves, in an alleged bribery.
Mr; John Hancock testifies that Mr. Brobst
told him be had the authority of Gen. Camer
on to nse money to secure bis election, and
that any arrangements he mtght make, within
a reasonable amount, would be immediately
complied with by Cameron.
The testimony of MicfcQl Boyer on this
subject is, that Mr. Brobst told him that he
was authorized to offer ten thousand dollars.
It is also in evidence that Mr.' Brobst told Mr.
Potteiger, a mcmbeAf the House, that if he
would vote for Gen. Cameron he could make
an independent fortund ; that be would guar
antee to him five thousand dollars in hand,
and a position worth forty thousand dollars;
thxt if he would uame the day he would bring
Gn. Cameron down to Berks connty to make
a final bargain on that ; he had better let par
ty go to the devil and make bis monoy.
The testimony of John P. Patterson, as al
ready intimated, corroborates that of Mr.
Boyer in nearly every point. They agree as
to their trip to Reading on the Lebanon Val
ley .Railroad; their interview on the cars;
their arrangements to meet Gen. Cameron at
the house ot his son previous to the Senatori
al election ; a meeting, according to this ar
rangement, to have an intervi twt
Cameron, Dr. Boyer and Senator Fuller, in
xt. rauerson's room, at Ucrr's Hotel. But
Mr. Pstterson denies most emphatically that
be or Gen. Cameron offered Dr. Boyer money
or anything else as a means of Inducing him
to vote for Cameron. Tbis, whether true or
false in itself, is what might be expected un
der the circumstances, according to the state
ment of Dr. Boyer, of what Mr. Patterson
said be would testify, if the investigation
should be instituted.
There are other statements in the testimony
of Mr. Patterson that are worthy of consider
ation. He says he came to Harrisburr at ttm
request or suggestion of no one. That he ar
rivea . nere on tne Htb or January, between
Ave and aiX O'clock in th aftrnnnn Th
after supper he met General Cameron by ac
cident at tbe Post Office, snd was informed by
him that he was not a candidate for United
States Senator. On the nlL liir ho uinshl
an interview wth Dr. Boyer, in order to as-
a. S ,1 a . . a.
ucrisiu wuctuer ue reany inctnaoa to vote for
General Cameron. That after having some
conversation with Dr. Boyer, on their wav to i
Reading, he had no faith in him, and conclu
ded that he would advise General Cameron
not to trnst bim. and that fJn Aval famAin
had said he would have nothing to do with
mm. ami, nowever, as the testimony of Dr.
Boyer and Mr. Patterson
in holding interviews with Dr. Boyer, in or
der to secure hi vote for Ceneral 1 jamprrtn
All this service Mr. Patterson nrfnrmrl mith.
out fee or reward from inr on. Than i.
other point in Mr. Patterson's testimony tbst
may do noticed, ue says that be was present
during the whole lima nf th ini.i-.i. .
tween Senstor Fuller, Gen. Cameron, and Dr.
coyer, at nis own room In uerr's Hotel. Ac
cordlngiy, he relates in bis testimony the con
versation which took place on that occasion.
But the testimony of Senator FnlW i th.t
Mr. Patterson was not in tht room han hat
was there. Here. then, is a flat contradiction
between these two witnesses: bnt the com.
mittae have n n rinnht rmm ik. k
. . vu. . tv.llAGUW U7
fore them, and from all the circumstances of
lue case, inac me testimony or Senator Fnl-
1S Sa m "
i? r is an uteraiiy true.
Mr. Wolf's testimonv f that W TT,nrv
Thomas said to him : Ga for Ken. Pamornn
and you will be well paid ; state how much
you will take to vote for Gon.JDameron ; put
down the figures." It is also in evidence that
John T. Hammer told Mr. Wolf that he could
make So. 000 by voting for fin dmn .n
again . that be (Mr.. Wolf) could make a nice
Tbe report concludes trirh th si.,iin. k.
If tbe testimony of these men ia tru ti.n
Gen. Cameron and those already imniir.f.H
are guilty.
The testimony in this case, as. taken before
the committee, is very voluminous, occupy-
r.. . . 1 'f . ... .... -
tug uiu iu. pages oi .arjc Din paper.
Report of the Minority.
The minority of tbe Committee apointed
to investigate the allegation that unlawful
means were employed to procure tbe election
of United States Senstor, respectfully report
as follows :
Said Committee was appointed yrrrrsuant to
the following preamble and reioluffon of the
House, viz: - . -
Wbcbkas, it is of vital impoitance to the
perpetuity of our free institutions and t. tbe
citizens of Pennsylvania that the electoral
franchise be preserved inviolate; aud where
as, it baa been extensively reported and is be
lieved by many that unlawful means were em
ployed to procure tbe election of United
States Senator on Tuesday last ; and whereas,
it is dun to those on whom suspicion may rest,
as also to the citizens ot this great Common
wealth, that this subject be investigated;
Resolved, That a committee of tour (subse
quently increased to seven) be appointed to
examine the facts in the case, with power to
send for persons and papers, and that they ro
port to tbia House. -
We believe that the dufy imposed upon the
Committee by the resolution recited, was tnl
ly completed when the testimony was lakn
and reported to the House. Neither the Com
mittee nor the House have power to enter le
gal judgment against or inflict punishment
upon persons implicated, and in view of the
probability that the matters submitted to the
Committee will undergo judicial investiga
tion, there would seem to be much propriety
in submitting the testimonv. taken, without
argnmeut or comment.
The majority of the Committee have thought
otherwise, and in their report, and accompa
nying an abstract of the principal testimony
taken, they have submitted t the House ar
guments, inferences' and deductions, founded
upon, and, as they think, resulting from the
facts in proof. After reciting the testimony
of Doctor Boyer, tbe majority of tne Commit
tee, singularly em ugh, address themselves
with zeal to an examination of bis, Buyer's,
claims to truthfulness.
Alter reciting various nonessential- points,
in which Doctor Boyer is corroborated by oth
er witnesses, the majority report aays " there
is almost a perfect agreement between them,
except in regard to the alleged money transac
tions. . . -.
It appears to us that what i thus called
"the alleged money transactions'" was the only
luiporiani point in the whole investigation,
auu iub uniy poim on which it was necessary
to inquire for corroborative testimony. Up
on that point,' the repoit states, and we do not
dissent from the statement, that either Doctor
Boyer on the one band, or both Brobst and
Patterson on tbe oth-.T, are guilty of "down
right and deliberate falsehood.
We do not now propose to discuss the rela
tive claims of Boyer, Brobst and Patterson to
credibility ; but as the report already submit
ted omits no occasion to commend tbe test!
anony ot Boyer, and as tbe majority hare not
been able to see anything in his agency in the
matter but what entitles him to commendation.
and it may , not be inappropriate to inquire
whether the zeal of the majority to aim at cer
tain conclusions has not blinded tbeiu to some
cases of probable guilt which presented them
selves at tue outset or our examination, and
reappeared in the testimony of many of the
witnesses. , -: . , -
In the statement of Dr. Bover rmhliahad in
the Patriot and Union, aud which he sweara is
bis statement, he ssys he conceived the Droi-
ect of putting himself in the way of the oper
atives, for the purpose of seeing bow far they
wonld go. Once conceived, (to use his own
language.) "1 determined to uct .uuon it."
The same statement is substantially repeated
in tne evidence submitted with tbe addition
that it was for thxt purpose that he continued
nis interviews with lien. Cameron and his
friends. He further states that he did con
clude a bargain bv which he arreeti to e-ntA
for Geo. Cameron in consideration of $20.-
000, which Gen. Cameron agreed to pay him.
ny me act oi iBbU it is provided that it any
member of assembly shaft agree to accept any
bribe offered for the purpose of influencing
bis vote as a legislator, he shall be guilty oi a
misdemeanor, and. on conviction, shall iav a
fine not exceeding $1,000, and suffer impris
onment not exceeding five years. Dr. Boyer,
if his own statemeut is believed, did so agree.
and it does not matter whether be did Or did
not intend IO live up to his agreement. Tbe
act ia leveled against corruut influences, and
it places him who offers and "him who agrees
to accept a bribe upon the same level. The
mischief which tbe law was intended to guard
against has been accomplished, and tbe inten
tion not to comply with tbe agreement is im
material the only question being, did the
party agreeing to accept the bribe intend so
to agree, or did be design to entice another
into a violation of the law 7 If this reason.
ing bo correct, it foilowa that T. J. B ter. a
member of tbis House, is guilty of reporting
to "unlawful means" to secure the election ot
United States Senator.
It is a well estsblished rule of law that he
who counsels, advises, and encourages anoth.
er In the perpetrat ion of an offence of the
grade of a misdemeanor, is himself an offen
der of the same grade of the principal actor.
i ne reporc already presented implicates no
person or persons aatbe advisers ol Mr. Boyer
in his scheme to entice Gen. Cameron or his
friends into a violation of the law by offering
money to secure a vote for United States-Sen
ator. The majority of your Committee hav- I
ing (doubtlessly through inadvertance) failed 1
io uiscover spoi or . oiemisn upon Mr. Boyer,
by the 'same inadvertance. fail of course, to
discover any thing wrong in the conduct of
those who were Drivr to his schemes and i.;
counsellors therein. -
Dr. Boyer states that during the progress
of his negotiations with Gen. Cameron, and
bis friends, he was io consultation witb Mr.
Wallace, of tbe Senate, Dr. Early, of the
House, and one Robert Vaugban.the bronrietor
of tbe Pennsylvania House at H arrishiircr-
He alao states that he communicated what ha
was doing to his father, Mr. P. Boyer, aud one
or two others; ...
It is bnt fsir to Senator Wallace. Dr. Earlv.
and tbe father of T. J. Boyer, to state that
tbey all deny this statement so far as it might
be - inferred therefrom thst they were cogni
zant of the fact that be rBover) had. or intan.
ded to consuroate a bargain for the sale of his
vote. Indeed. Dr. Bover'a father tne. ti,.f
he knew nothing of the Dart hia ion .
ting until be saw it in the DaDer. when h
made inquiry as to its truth.
With reference to Mr. Vaugn. however. th
case is different. His own testimony orml..
rates that of Mr. Boyer, stating as he sub
stantially does that be advised Rnr ;r t..
could save the Democratic party from defeat
by agreeing to accept a bribe it waa his duty
to do so.
If tbe statement of Mr. Boyer. corroborated
as it is by Mr. Vaugn'a oath, be true, it fol
lows that Robert Vaugn. of the citv of llar
risburg, is guilty of resorting to unlawful
means to secure the election of United Sti
Senator. . - ;
Dr. Boyer further states thst on the Sunday
preceeding tbe election, and after he had, as
he testifies, concluded a bargain for the said
of his vote, Mr. Buckalew, (since elected to
the Senate) called npon blru ; that be inform
ed Mr. Buckalew of the arrangements he bad
made; that Mr. Buckalew advised him to be
cautious, to which he replied that he under-'
tooi Mmselt, or to that thVct. Th
flints V llu n4 a -
J in I II V iv Uiiii 1 1,1 ... i
important, bnt take,, i connection iu, ,h
Did Ch.rlos R. Bnckah-w, prior i ihU in"
art Mr. Boyer n
Waa be priy to it
and its purposes 1
adviser therein.
n u
It is to tie borne In mind, that
1 '.-- a
ew was si luie lime a
prominent i ierht,. ..
i oat prominent) candidate for the Duu'Wat
ic caucus nouiinjtion. It was natural ami Cer
tainly not improper that he should feel ,.u,J
degree of anxiety that the ' caucus nouii,,,
should succeed in the election.and that i-tlori
to prevent such success should iu sojue uim,.
ner Ik; thwarted.
Mr. Boyer states that it was generally r, nor
ted that unlawful means would be resorted to
to deleat the Democratic nominee. Hi slso
informs us that he kept several of bis partv
Irieuds informed of what he wss doing suit
the progress he was msking. Now it is h
sihle that Mr. Buckslew (the person or air
others the most deeply interested in the sUc.
cessol Mr. Boyer's scheme.) niirht. whil- hi,,
party friends were fully informed, hare been'
leli in total ignorance of it-, hut to use th
language of the majority report, "is it proba--ble
t" , . .
irwe have reason to believe that he
privy to Boyer's proceedings at th time, ho
vufe. wtviy on me CMUUaill an ?(.,.
ceding the election, it was but natural that
these proceedings should b the sul ject or
consultation and in that consultation Mr
Buckalew must have been either passive, ex"
pressing neither appiobation nor disapproba
tion of Boyer's action ; he must have dlssp.
proved of it or he mnst have approved it. To
suppose that he was entirely paniv would lie
to suppose that he is constituted difiereui
from allother men; lo infer that he disap
proved ol it. would bo to run counter to rba
testimony of Boyer. '
a a. .
uai ue apprnvcu of Boyer course that
he Counseled bim to ha cauti..usj that nucb
caution ImtJ - r1.f4.r1.nn. tn 1 1 . - .
- me nuiitcr inter
views which Boyer had arranged to have with'
Geo. Cameron and his friends that
merely a caution to k conduct himself as to
avoid detection, are inferences we think vetv
clearly deducihle from tbe evidence. If thin
reasoning be correct, and if Dr. Boyer's testi
mony lie true, it follows that Charles R. Hurk
alew is guilty of renortingto "unlawful means"
to secure the elect ion of V. .N. Senator.
Mr.S. S. Pancoast.a member of this House.
testifies that soon after the election, he in. t
Mr. v nii.im uooaw in, formerly a member of
the Siate Senate, in the city of Philadelphia;
that Mr. Goodwin informed bim (referring to
the Boyer transaction) tbst "Mr. Buckalew
set tbe wt.ole tbiag up, and that we carried it
through. " . Ue further states that he under
stood from Mr. Goodw ill that there wss an ar
rangement between himsell.Mr. Buckalew. and
others, to get Guu. Catue-rou to offer a bribe,
or to get some person to offer 10 be bribed.
Mr. Goodwin (the party ihua implicated) de
nies this btihatantiaily. It the testimoue ot
Mr. Pancosst be true; it follows that Mr. Wil
liam Goodwin of thu iiir !' I'l.il.r?..I..l.iJ i.
chargeable with resorting to unlawful means
to secure the election of U. S. Senator.
Thus Ctc we have spokon only of tbe statu
tory offence of which T. J. Boycr,if bis testi
mony is true, Is guilty, and if guiliy (the of
fence bt-iug a misdemeanor to which there'
Can b no accessories) it follows that all tbe
parties who were in consultation with him,
aiding, counseling aud adiiaing, arc also guil
ty as principals. .
It our conclusions are not well drawn frtu
the preiuitcs, there is still another view ul llm
subject, overlooked by the majority, upon
which, iu our judgmeut there ;u be 110 lo
opinions. . .
The offense of couxpifac-y at common law i
a combination of persons to. do an nnlawfuf
rjf t, or to do a lawful- ant in an unUwful uiau--rner.
If T. J. Boyer's Jeatimonv bu tiue.lin
together with b persons w.ih whom he c n
sultod. and who advised and encouraged liiiti,
sre guilty of a conspiracy to entice Gen.
Cameron and o'Ium into a biepch nf the law
by offering moneVor using other undue ii.fl.i-
ence to secure a vote ror Senator, and it dors
not' matter whether the primary purpose of
such combination as to defeat General Cam
eron or to ensure the success of the ! tuo
cratic nominee. "
The late hour at which the majority raport
was Uccessarily made the mass of testimony
in the case and tbe other duties devolving np
on ns have precluded anyibiug like a thor
ough rotiow of .the - evidence, and we ate o
bliged to content ourselves with a hasty re
vio'r or the principal testimony tearing on
tbe subject ot our iuquiry. and in our judg
ment dischising.xntn instances of unlawful
means used to secure the election or United
States Senator, which were overlooked in the
majority report.
We accord to the majority of the Committee
our opprobation of the courtesy exhibited by
them to the minority during the progress f
the investigation, and we only regret thai
the argumentative character of their report
has, in our judgment, imposed upon us the
duty of following their example, and present
ing our view-sand conclusion as drawn from
the evidence, all which is respectfully sub
mitted. Gov. Curtln declines a re-nomination.
Art yertisrmmtssrt tu targe type, cuts, or out offfuai
ntyl mi ll be charged douhlr. pries for spare ocr,i pi i
To ins are attention, the CASH must accompa
ny notices, as follows: All Cautions with 81.
Strays, SI; Auditors' notises, S1.50; Adminis
trators' and Executors' notices, $1,50, each ; and
all other transient Notices at the sam rales.
Other a ivertisemen' s at SI per sq aare, or 3 nr Uu
liise. tiona. Twelve lines (or less) count a square..
KECTOKS. By reference to tbe Pnny Irani
'School Journal' for March and April, page tfi
and 291. it will be seen that the Annual Certifi
cates of Presidents, and Secretaries, ar subject
each to ten cents tax. , But by an amendment t
the law pasned March 3d last, and now just pub
lished, the stamp required is only a five oeM one.
It will, therefore, be the duty of the President t
attach to each certificate a, five cent government
sump. The officers of tbs different Bosrdi will,
as early as way ha convenient, tend to trie the An
nual certificates, that the schools "Hare been o
pen and in operation according to law." so that I
may forward it to the Department, that the war
rant may be issned at osce for tbe Districts' ahara
ot tha appropriation. . C. B. SAJiDFORD,
Clearfield, April 22, IBel. Co. upt
of Administration on tbo estate of liugh Kid
dle, late of the Borough of New Washington.
Clearfield connty. Penn'a. dee'd. having been
granted to the undersigned, all persons indebted'
to said estate are requested to tnaka immediate
payment, and those having claims against tb
sama will present thsin properly authenticate
for settlement JAMES liALLAUEB.
March 13, 1833-Stp. Administrator
pA. The subscriber having; parchasad:
furniture and interest from H. H. Morrow, in sat
House, is now prepared for the reception of tr
sieat and permanent boarders. Every eVp
ment eonneeted with his establishment "
conducted seeond to none in thounty. H rf
pectfullj solicits a share ot"-public pslrouaz ; 1
July 11, 1800 -y. GI. X. CLBCU-